| 12:11 am on Jul 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Whatever happened with the Brian Reid lawsuit? He alleged that he was fired from his position at Google because he was 54 and upper execs felt that he didn't "fit in." Has anyone heard anything about that since it was initially reported?
| 10:40 pm on Aug 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Someone needs some serious HR lessons and training. I wonder who?
| 2:37 am on Aug 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Agree with bakedjake; it seems that a company with Google's financial resources should have a better way of handling this situation. At the very least, I'd think they could get a temp in or give some extra training to current staff to handle the responsibilities of the pregnant woman while she's on leave.
| 3:26 am on Aug 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
One thing to remember: lawsuits are allegations, and not established facts. I've been on the receiving end of some amazingly spun lawsuits that bore little resemblance to my knowledge of the facts.
So lets not go jumping all over this with assumptions. Of course, the simple fact that the lawsuits are public knowledge is bad PR for Google. But a company that size will not have only happy campers on staff (or leaving.)
| 4:14 am on Aug 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>amazingly spun lawsuits
yeah - allegations don't mean crap. People lie - maybe google is at fault here - maybe they aren't.
It isn't like the lawyer wasn't being crafty:
"On Aug. 18, the day before Google's long-awaited IPO debuted, Elwell filed a discrimination complaint against the company with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. "
IMHO - it does matter who is right or wrong. They got 3,000+ employees - some are going to sue. Lawyers twist the truth and often leave out crucial details.
Legal pleadings mean squat until you see both sides and evidence to support it. You are pretty much immune from libel by putting something in a legal pleading. Everything she says could be TECHNICALLY correct - and still mean nothing.
Stuff like "would see her position deleted from a Google organizational chart" means ABSOLUTELY nothing in and of itself. The careful language would lead me to be very wary of jumping to conclusions. Google has a stellar reputation for human resources. Should at least have their answer before assuming they did something wrong.
| 5:00 am on Aug 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|One thing to remember: lawsuits are allegations, and not established facts. I've been on the receiving end of some amazingly spun lawsuits that bore little resemblance to my knowledge of the facts. |
Exactly. I've been on the management side of lots of threatened lawsuits over discrimination over the years and yet never lost a single case. Accusations are meaningless unless you know all of the facts. In my experience, a significant number of people legitimately fired for poor performance always complained that it was because of their gender, faith or sexual preference or whatever.
Don't prejudge this case until you know all of the facts.
| 7:01 pm on Aug 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Q is when will you (really) know all of the facts!
| 10:30 pm on Aug 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Even not knowing all the facts, I think a company of G's size and reputation should have a better way of handling such a situation.
| 6:51 pm on Aug 29, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Without knowing what really happened: why is Google being sued, and why they will keep getting sued (regardless of merit)? Because they have money.